Getting it into your agent
One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.
npx skills add Smirnov-Labs/claude-skills --skill pr-fixgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Smirnov-Labs/claude-skillsWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/skills/smirnov-labs/claude-skills/pr-fix)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/smirnov-labs/claude-skills/pr-fix"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/smirnov-labs/claude-skills/pr-fix/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/smirnov-labs/claude-skills/pr-fix"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/smirnov-labs/claude-skills/pr-fix.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $0.00074 | $0.01633 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00030 | $0.00653 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00015 | $0.00327 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00163 |
Grade A, and why
pr-fix scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 5d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 146 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
PR Fix
You are entering an autonomous loop that drives a pull request to a clean state. Each round: read CI status + all reviewer feedback, fix what's blocking, commit, push, wait for new signal, repeat.
Reading and waiting on the bots goes through prbots (from the watching-pr-bot-reviews skill: on PATH where skillsync installed it, otherwise that skill's bin/prbots). Never write a sleep / until poller.
Prerequisites
The current branch MUST have an open PR. Verify with gh pr view --json number,state,headRefName. If no PR exists, stop and tell the user to open one first.
Process
Step 1: Identify the PR
Capture once and reuse throughout the loop:
PR_NUMBER=$(gh pr view --json number -q .number)
REPO=$(gh repo view --json nameWithOwner -q .nameWithOwner)
NEED=codex,ci
gh api repos/$REPO/actions/workflows --jq '.workflows[].path' | grep -qi archit && NEED=$NEED,sar
NEED is what each round waits for: Codex and CI always, the SAR only when the repo has an architecture-review workflow (waiting on a SAR that never runs would sit out the timeout).
Step 2: Run the Fix Loop
Execute up to 5 iterations. Each iteration is one full read → fix → push → wait cycle.
2a. Read PR state
-
Bots and CI, one call:
prbots $PR_NUMBER --need $NEED --fullCodex findings, the SAR, CI checks, and a CLEAN / FIX / BLOCK / PENDING verdict for HEAD. For a failing check, fetch its log:
gh run view <run-id> --log-failed -
Human feedback (prbots covers only the bots):
gh api repos/$REPO/pulls/$PR_NUMBER/comments --paginate --jq '.[] | select(.user.type != "Bot") | {user: .user.login, path, line, created_at, body}' gh api repos/$REPO/pulls/$PR_NUMBER/reviews --paginate --jq '.[] | select(.user.type != "Bot") | {user: .user.login, state, submitted_at, body}' gh api repos/$REPO/issues/$PR_NUMBER/comments --paginate --jq '.[] | select(.user.type != "Bot") | {user: .user.login, created_at, body}'
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- 5d ago First seen · 146 lines · 74 tokens per session scan A 6be148685ad5
pr-fix is a skill published in the GitHub repository Smirnov-Labs/claude-skills (6 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 74 tokens to every session and 1,633 once invoked, about $0.0003 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-10-17.
Other skills, from other repositories
review-implement-phase
Implements triaged review actions, commits focused fixes, and posts Done plus resolves threads. Use when the user wants only the implementation phase of the review-framework workflow.
github-pr-workflow
Prepare a GitHub pull request from a feature branch — branch hygiene, commit shape, title/body, verification notes, screenshots for UI work, and replies to review comments.
review-delta
Review only changes since last commit using impact analysis. Token-efficient delta review with automatic blast-radius detection.
github-contributor
A step-by-step guide for contributing code, tests, documentation, or build changes to open-source projects you do not maintain. It explains how to prepare a pull request that follows the project’s rules and is easier for maintainers to review.
hero-diff-highlight
A dark code editor reveals a red deletion then a green addition with a soft pulse. Function: PR / code-change explainer.
git-pr-workflows-git-workflow
Guide changes through code checks, testing, commits, and pull request preparation. Use when coordinating a complete Git workflow and verifying readiness for collaboration.